[2023:RJ-JD:27923] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 170/2020 Gomati Devi W/o Shri Pura Ram Gaur, Aged About 74 Years, B/c Brahmin, R/o 4, Hanwant Colony, Raika Bagh, Jodhpur, Presently Residing At Lakshmi Nagar, Opposite Officers Colony Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Appellant Versus The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur, Near Polytechnic College, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dheerendra Singh Sodha HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Judgment 04/09/2023
1. The present second appeal has been preferred against judgment and decree dated 07.09.2020 passed by the District Judge, Jodhpur District in Civil Appeal No.11/2017 whereby the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2017 passed by the Civil Judge, Jodhpur District in Civil Original Suit No.256/2014 (364/2012) has been affirmed. Vide the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2017, learned trial Court proceeded on to dismiss the suit for permanent injunction as preferred by the plaintiff.
2. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant Municipal Corporation was threatening to dispossess her from the land of her ownership measuring 15 x 60 sq.ft. No written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant neither was any evidence led by him. On basis of pleadings made by the plaintiff, one issue was framed by learned trial Court which reads as under : (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:25:17 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:27923] (2 of 3) [CSA-170/2020] "01- vk;k oknh] izfroknh dks oknh ds okni= ds in la[;k 01 o 02 esa of.kZr jgoklh; tk;nkn esa o'kksZa iqjkus cus gq, iDds fuekZ.k dk;Z Vhu "ksM] yksgs dh tkfy;kW o njokts ij ls oknh dks csn[ky djus ;k djokus ls izfroknh dks tfj;s LFkkbZ fu'ks/kkKk ikcan djokus dk vf/kdkjh gS \"
3. While deciding the said issue, the learned trial Court specifically concluded that no document pertaining to the ownership of the plaintiff was placed on record. The Court found that although in her affidavit in evidence, the plaintiff had averred that she had purchased the land in question vide agreement dated 10.11.2011 from one Dev Krishna Gaur but no such agreement was placed on record. Further, learned Court took into consideration the contradictions in the statements of the plaintiff in her cross-examination wherein she at one instance submitted that there was a Gali adjoining to her residential house whereas on second instance she submitted that there was a open space. In view of the fact that the plaintiff failed to prove her ownership on the land in question, both the Courts below reached to the concurrent finding that she was not entitled for any injunction in her favour.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record.
5. A perusal of the statements of PW-1 Smt. Gomati Devi as recorded makes it clear that counsel for the plaintiff specifically submitted before the Court that he did not intend to place on record the original documents and therefore, the copies of the documents as placed on record could not be marked as exhibits. The note as made by the learned Judge reads as under : (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:25:17 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:27923] (3 of 3) [CSA-170/2020] "fnΠ16&8&16 dks "kiFk fnykbZ xbZ uksV & odhy oknh }kjk ewy nLrkost is"k ugha djuk pkgk ftlls izn"kZ ugha Mkys tk ldsA uksV & xokg us eq[; ijh{k.k ds :i esa izLrqr "kiFk&i= dks lgh gksuk Lohdkj fd;k bl ij xokg ds gLrk{kj gSA"
6. In view of the admitted fact that no document was exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff to prove her ownership on the land in question and rather the same was specifically denied, this Court is of the clear opinion that the concurrent findings as arrived by the learned Courts below does not deserve any interference and no substantial question of law arise in the present appeal.
7. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed.
8. The stay application and the pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed.
(REKHA BORANA),J 30-Vij/-(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:25:17 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)